A theory of interpersonal conflict

On the beach vs. in the mountains: where do you go on vacation?

Photo via Unsplash.

Edited to add on 23/03/21: The

A while back, I read In Over Our Heads by Robert Kegan. It came heavily recommended in a community I’m a part of as a framework for personal growth and learning “adulting”. A good, short introduction into the theory can be found here.

It’s not a good theory of everything – in particular, the Kegan framework contains elements which may be better explained by the near/far distinction or the stages in the model of hierarchical complexity.

It did, though, help me find a useful way of thinking about interpersonal conflict.

The brief version: Each conflict you engage in in the outer world is also one you engage in in the inner world, within yourself.

This is paralleled by sports coaches making a distinction between outer and inner game. It also parallels warships differentiating between internal and external combat¹. I’ll come back to that second one, because I know slightly more about naval warfare than I do about sports (I know nothing about sports).

A necessary precursor to realising that each outer conflict is mirrored by an usually invisible inner one is to think, once again, about the limitations of models. No model is a perfect 1:1 representation of reality. Every model is subcomplex. So there will always be a tension between reality and your model of it, a place where your inner geography department is struggling to catch up with its job in a dynamic world. All of this would still be true if you lived on an island and didn’t have to deal with other humans, ever. But you do.

Now we introduce additional complexity: it’s not just your mental map that’s flawed, the other person’s is flawed too. Sometimes the maps will have very little overlap. Of course it’s thinkable that one of your maps is much more accurate than the other’s, but in interpersonal conflict that’s generally not a useful assumption. So a basic assumption we make before engaging in any conflict is that each participant’s map could do with some serious updating.

Enough now with the theory talk, let’s do a practical example. You want to go on vacation with someone else and one of you wants to go to the beach, the other to the mountains. What do you do? Standard models of conflict resolution might suggest any of the following: you choose randomly, you alternate so the other person gets to choose the next time, or you try to find a compromise. To do that, you might want to do some introspection. The beach person and mountain person each decide what they want out of their vacation and then you search for a destination that gets a reasonable number of each of your needs met.

That last suggestion is already somewhat close to what I’m trying to get at, I just want to place it into a broader framework. Suppose you’re the beach person and the need you’re trying to get met is relaxation. What the mountain person is trying to achieve is to challenge themselves and achieve growth. (Sorry for the stereotyping, the opposite motives work just as well – one person wishing to challenge themselves surfing and the other wanting to relax in a jacuzzi in an Alpine hut.)

Now the thing is that you do not want to sunbathe and relax with 100% of your soul – there’s a part of yourself that wants challenge and growth, too. You’re just not prioritising it right now. Maybe your life was stressful recently, maybe you’re just easygoing, whatever. The point is, it’s there, however deeply hidden.

This means you’re not just having the beach vs. mountains conflict with your vacation companion, you’re having it within yourself too. To determine the optimal destination, each of you needs to find out their position in their inner version of the conflict, and which version of themselves you want the other to support in yourself.

Of course, beach vs. mountains is a silly example. That’s why I chose it. But the more important the conflict is, the greater the potential damage from ignoring the mirrored inner conflict. So let’s talk about good vs. evil, instead.

When the Russian author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was imprisoned in the Gulag, he reflected on how the evils of the prison camps could possibly have happened. He wrote:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

• Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

You cannot effectively fight the evil in the world unless you also fight it in yourself. If you’re just engaged in the outer conflict, but neglecting the inner one, then while you’re out there fighting the good fight, you may very well be strengthening the tendency within yourself that first gave rise to the evil you’re opposing. If you don’t stop to look within yourself, you won’t know. You’re letting the whims of randomness of life circumstances decide.

I find it possible to apply this framework to every interaction, but not practical. That’s why I brought up the naval warfare doctrine. The rule there is “external before internal combat”. Phrased differently: if in doubt, first engage in self-preservation. Sometimes there’s just no opportunity to engage in introspection. In that case, it should be delayed, but no more than necessary. Just like you shouldn’t delay repairs on crucial parts of a ship’s propulsion system.

Postscript:

1. I do not understand Kegan very well, so if I’m misrepresenting anything, please let me know.

2. I’m not 100% percent happy with the tone of this piece, but it just came out that way. Maybe I need to improve my mental agility?

1. I couldn’t find out what the established English terms for these concepts are. If anyone knows, please tell me!